If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

...we dont really ban anything.

Yes, we do. We ban cars with poor emissions - big stiff penalty plus a boot for driving one that hasn't passed the smog test. The U.S. government banned high mileage cars in the U.S. (Volkswagon Passat; gets 70+ mpg) last year for tax reasons; go here to read about it: http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/...revenues-high/ ...and that is from a Libertarian source, no less!

We ban narcotics in the U.S. We ban pharmaceuticals produced in certain countries (India and Pakistan, to be specific). We ban certain chemicals (pesticides and pollutants).
We even ban drunk drivers when they've had one DUI too many. Some alcohols are banned from being sold on Sundays, or through certain outlets (no Jesus Juice or beer currently sold in grocery stores in Tennessee).

You probably drive a car and you probably drink, and you may take prescription drugs from time to time, not to mention OTC cold remedies on occasion.
What part of

regulating and restricting

guns are you so freaked out about?
Prohibitions most certainly do work; the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without them, and neither would the lowering of hate crimes in the U.S.

It's pretty clear you're not willing to substantiate your argument beyond pro-gun organization rhetoric, so I'm guessing that you're mistaking logic and cold hard fact for what you believe to be hostility. Ain't no hostile parties here, other than the ones who believe your support of any choice of firearm on any given day, with any variety and amount of ammunition, is both threatening and unnecessary. Quit the feral pig argument already; the chances of encountering a feral pig during each of our lifetimes are probably less than lightning striking twice in the same place.

Absolutely speech is regulated....when it is a crime.

That's what I said when I cited hate speech turning into outright crimes. So you DO understand the concept of regulation when it comes to the First Amendment, but you don't regarding the Second? Hypocrite much??

Then I assume that since you're not in favor of outright bans that you'd support stiffer fines and consequences for ignoring legal requirements to register, own and operate firearms? Ignoring required bills of sales when transferring ownership of weapons, similar to the ones required for the sale of a car to another person? At some point, gun owners and gun rights supporters need to take clear accountability and responsibility for their decision to own and operate guns. If truancy laws affecting parents of hookey-players (parents get fined or go to jail), then the same should be enforced for gun owners who don't pony up the cash to own and operate a firearm. I think that's fair, in lieu of a ban, don't you?

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by Todash

Cars: -~snip for post length~

No no no. You are forgetting a very important thing here. All of that...ALL, only applies to operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Not purchasing or owning a car. I would argue that my cat could buy a car, as a person is not required to have drivers license or insurance to purchase a car. And I could own a fleet of vehicles, pull the catalytic converters out of them, the seatbelts, the air bags....all of it, and drive around in that motor vehicle without a license or insurance...on private property. And there aint anything the government can do to me. Nothing. It is my private property on my private property.

Big difference between ownership and operating.

Drugs: You cannot obtain certain drugs without a prescription. You cannot get certain drugs at all, as they have been banned because they are thought to cause harm. You cannot purchase street drugs.

Drugs are...for the most part...against the law, nor a protected right under the constitution.

Alcohol: You cannot buy it if you are under the age of 21. You cannot transport an open container of it in your car.

And you have to be 18 to buy a long rifle and 21 to buy a handgun in this country. Even to purchase ammunition. I'm okay with that.

Although, I would argue it should all be 18. firearms, ammunition, alcohol, etc etc. But that is a different story.

~snip~ There is no court than can restore my life. THAT is the material difference between shooting someone in the head and slandering that person.

It does not matter. You cant go after me in court for 'contemplating' slandering you. I have to actually slander you. That is the way it works.

...... Now, when I say "secondary rights," I don't mean to imply that they are not important. Maybe it would be better to call them ancillary rights. ..... ~snip~

I consider the right of self-defense one of the most important rights there is. No one has a right to harm me. Thus, I have an inalienable right to defend myself. Self defense is basically...the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

....Yes. Let's look at the drug war reasonably and see that it's not working and that in some instances, .... ~snip~

Glad I could bring someone around to something. Even if it has nothing to do with firearms. Now consider a 'war on guns' instead of a war on drugs, and replace the word 'drugs' with 'firearms' and realize that a prohibition of firearms would not work(as well as being even more detrimental as you are removing the right of people to defend themselves against the black market criminals that will spring up)....and we can agree even more.

But ... guns are a bit different from drugs and alcohol, because of the supply chain. It's a different situation from drugs and booze because with a little discretion and not much more cash, I could get me a nice little setup going in my basement to produce either of those things. There are no meth factories; you ever notice that? Only meth houses. Guns are pieces of engineering, and you better get 'em just right, or you're likely to blow yourself up the first time you take aim at a target. They're not a DIY endeavor, is what I'm saying.

I could build a firearm that slung a piece of lead downrange in an hour in my garage. The gunpowder may take longer to make, but it is all basic principles of chemistry. Heck, it is really really ancient technology. I could also take up 3 pages posting pictures of operational firearms made in peoples garages all over this world(now, and going back hundreds of years).

And that isnt even bringing things like 3D printing into play.

Countries that regulate guns more strictly than the US have a lower death rate by firearm and overall. In some cases, regulation works.

The countries you are probably talking about have always had a lower homicide rate than us. For the past 100 years. When they had full firearm ownership until they have almost a complete ban on firearm ownership. They dont have our unique history, our cultural problems, our large gang problems, etc etc. Also, most of them, as I have already stated, dont respect other civil rights nearly as well as we do. It is much much easier to involuntarily commit a person in many of these countries. If you want to live in a free society, than you should respect all of our civil rights. Even ones you personally dont like. Heck, in most countries, hate speech is a crime. Just speech. We stand almost alone in the world in protecting that as a right. Should we snip away at ole 1A to be more like them? In my opinion...no. As much as I despise hate speech, I dont want to see 1A watered down anymore.

Heck, other countries have a vastly different judicial system than ours as well. In Australia, you remaining silent...CAN be used against you in a court of law. In britain, the requirements of search warrants are far less restrictive than here. If you get arrested walking out of your home in England, they dont need a search warrant to search your home.

My point? Be very careful when making these types of comparisons. There are many legal differences between our two countries, as well as historical, cultural and socioeconomic differences as well.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by Todash

There have been, in this thread and others, plenty of logical, clearheaded, dispassionate, reasonable, sensible posts championing the stricter control of guns.

I am not going to bother to look through your post history to find an intelligent post regarding gun control...if one even exists. It has nothing to do with your posting style directed at me in this thread.

If you can't discuss an issue without going off into tangents on burritos, or trying to label an individual, your opinions and arguments are based on nothing but hot air.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by jay1799

I am not going to bother to look through your post history to find an intelligent post regarding gun control...if one even exists. It has nothing to do with your posting style directed at me in this thread.

If you can't discuss an issue without going off into tangents on burritos, or trying to label an individual, your opinions and arguments are based on nothing but hot air.

I think you have me confused with someone else. My posting style in this thread has been passionate, perhaps, but I have neither gone off on tangents, burrito-related or otherwise, nor have I "labeled" you in any way other than how you have labeled yourself. My point is that you seemed to be implying that every comment that is pro-gun control has been in way of being a personal attack, and while I understand that as a member of the (here) vocal minority, you might feel that way, it's just not true.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

If you can't discuss an issue without going off into tangents on burritos, or trying to label an individual, your opinions and arguments are based on nothing but hot air.

Because a bunch of people who have known each other for years in internet land joke around in the middle of a frank discussion, EVERYTHING they said is being dismissed?

That is ridiculous.

If one is really worried about the chance of someone breaking into their house, do you know what things are more effective than having a gun (which can be and are stolen if someone breaks in when you are not home)? Have a big dog and advertise it (put beware of dog signs up in noticeable locations), and have an alarm system, keep foliage trimmed back and get to know your neighbors. Unless it is a personal vendetta, most thieves strike easy targets. Thieves do not know you have a gun, but they do know you've got a big black dog and a ADT sticker on your windows, which would be a lot of bother.

Also, your pig problem posit? If you are actively hunting wild boar (and I know that they are incredibly dangerous animals as well as a nuisance) which is a very specialized instance, I don't see why, with a "I'm hunting boar" permit (that could be free and just requires paperwork), you could not get a larger ammo clip for whatever gun you use. You have shown a NEED for that clip. The average joe schmoe doesn't have that need. I still feel that 10 rounds is typically sufficient, but I could concede a need in that instance.

No one here is advocating completely eliminating guns. The fact that you can't even see why it might be a good thing to regulate them, like everything else is regulated, is kind crazy.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Background checks need to be tightened and the NRA needs to stop putting up roadblocks for all levels (local, state, and federal) of the government to do so but here are yet more reasons for me to believe that as long as there is a proliferation of easily accessible guns, other measures to protect us such as background checks will not be enough.

Emissions tests are done by a state. Guess what, down here in Florida....No emissions tests. None.

Even things like 'open container laws'. State. Mississippi, a DRIVER of a car can have an open container.

As far as this whole ban on 'high milegae cars'. All I can find is some forum posts all talking about the same thing. There is no federal law. If there is, post the law. Please, and I will read it. But even snopes says it is hogwash. http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/passat.asp

We ban narcotics in the U.S. We ban pharmaceuticals produced in certain countries (India and Pakistan, to be specific). We ban certain chemicals (pesticides and pollutants).
We even ban drunk drivers when they've had one DUI too many. Some alcohols are banned from being sold on Sundays, or through certain outlets (no Jesus Juice or beer currently sold in grocery stores in Tennessee).
You probably drive a car and you probably drink, and you may take prescription drugs from time to time, not to mention OTC cold remedies on occasion.
What part of guns are you so freaked out about?

None of them are protected rights. And even your blue laws are state laws. Not federal. And remember what it DID take to ban alcohol at the federal level. A constitutional amendment.

Prohibitions most certainly do work; the civil rights movement wouldn't have succeeded without them, and neither would the lowering of hate crimes in the U.S.

What? Prohibitions on committing a crime? Our hate crime laws do not regulate free speech. No federal hate crime law regulates speech. They make already existing crimes...possible hate crimes...if it can be shown that the crime was motivated by 'hatred'.

That is all

It's pretty clear you're not willing to substantiate your argument beyond pro-gun organization rhetoric, so I'm guessing that you're mistaking logic and cold hard fact for what you believe to be hostility. Ain't no hostile parties here, other than the ones who believe your support of any choice of firearm on any given day, with any variety and amount of ammunition, is both threatening and unnecessary. Quit the feral pig argument already; the chances of encountering a feral pig during each of our lifetimes are probably less than lightning striking twice in the same place.

I believe in the Bill of Rights.

That's what I said when I cited hate speech turning into outright crimes. So you DO understand the concept of regulation when it comes to the First Amendment, but you don't regarding the Second? Hypocrite much??

Again, you need to look at out federal hate crime laws. They do not turn any speech into a crime. They turn an already existing crime, into a possible hate crime.

Then I assume that since you're not in favor of outright bans that you'd support stiffer fines and consequences for ignoring legal requirements to register, own and operate firearms? Ignoring required bills of sales when transferring ownership of weapons, similar to the ones required for the sale of a car to another person? At some point, gun owners and gun rights supporters need to take clear accountability and responsibility for their decision to own and operate guns. If truancy laws affecting parents of hookey-players (parents get fined or go to jail), then the same should be enforced for gun owners who don't pony up the cash to own and operate a firearm. I think that's fair, in lieu of a ban, don't you?

I dont support any law that turns a lawful gun owner into an criminal, by simply passing a law.

If you want to go after actual criminals...do so.

As far as parents taking responsibility for their children, all areas of responsibility, I am in favor of that. A parent IS ultimately responsible for their child. Up until that child is an adult.

Re: Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

Originally Posted by Todash

I think you have me confused with someone else. My posting style in this thread has been passionate, perhaps, but I have neither gone off on tangents, burrito-related or otherwise, nor have I "labeled" you in any way other than how you have labeled yourself. My point is that you seemed to be implying that every comment that is pro-gun control has been in way of being a personal attack, and while I understand that as a member of the (here) vocal minority, you might feel that way, it's just not true.

That is possible. And if I confused you with someone else, I do apologize.